PARTICIPANT EVALUATIONS FOR November 16, 2004 Center for Strategic Training and Development
INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Strongly agree
FORMAT:
1. The meeting format fostered an exchange of ideas.
2. The meeting fostered an understanding of stakeholder issues other than mine.
3. The meeting created an opportunity to meet other stakeholders.
4. The facilitator enhanced the meeting’s outcome.
SUSBTANCE:
5. The meeting provided me information concerning methods other agencies are using to collect existing employee
competencies.
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
5
5
3
5
2
3
5
2
1
1
4
3
1
4
3
5
1
Disagree
Why or why not?
Talking with others and actually reflecting during session.
It was helpful to have the opportunity to reflect on my experience with the agency and how we have grown in that time.
I am relatively new in this area of policy and strategic plans and do not have the learning of the past four years.
Allowed me to consider issues relevant to other organizations.
I was able to reflect on where I was and where I am now.
Through discussion.
Would have preferred a few more senior officials in the group.
6. The meeting provided me with information concerning how I might overcome the barriers to collecting existing
employee competencies.
1 (1st speaker)
Why or why not?
1st speaker did not address the topic, i.e. “knowing what I know now,” etc.
It was extremely helpful to see the political appointees’ perspective on their roles.
Especially Mr. Delgado-Jenkins’ insight on building the basis for creating a plan.
Discussions focuses on issues that would have created goal oriented execution earlier in their tenures.
Linda Combs’ experience was helpful in giving me insight.
Through presentations/discussions.
7. The meeting provided me with information concerning how I might better describe the link between existing employee
competencies and creating high performing organizations.
Why or why not?
Some good thoughts and points to take away.
I will focus more on getting the more important work done.
Again, being new to the process, I am not prepared to speak to actions.
Helped me understand what is needed to achieve agency goals and objectives.
Mr. Jenkins offered excellent suggestions to me personally about how to be included at Treasury.
N/A – timing.
Especially valued discussion of inclusion. Other people won’t know they are included if I don’t tell them.
8. .My expectations were met.
Y- 8
N- 1
Yes
No
Good leadership talks – but the topic of the session was not addressed.
1
Strongly
disagree
9. I liked most:
Exchanges and Delgado on basic leadership did tie in with treas.
Interaction – hearing from other people and sharing my knowledge.
The overall seminar was very good and there is nothing I would identify as most or least liked.
Entire forum experience.
The discussion questions.
Discussion and seeing Bob after such a long time!
Discussion over lunch.
10. I liked least:
1st speaker was a DOT (finance process) briefing, not a lessons learned reflection.
Nothing – nice job. Food was fabulous.
The overall seminar was very good and there is nothing I would identify as most or least liked.
N/A.
Small number of discussion participants at table. Jenkins seemed to be off-topic/not focused to me.
The slides at beginning of Dr. Combs’ presentations didn’t connect with her talk.
Second speaker – too much jargon and theory.
11. Suggestions for future meetings:
This was a good topic. Suggest more policy implementation/political and career/interface and less H.R.
Now do you keep the momentum up on the change teams when a new director arrives and his/her vision is different from that previously decided by the group?
Opportunity for additional participant discussion.
How agencies developed metrics focused on PART and PMA.
More discussion.